The Humanitarian Intervention Since 1990

The phrase became traditional in the follow-up of Serbian assaults on ethnic Bosnians during the Bosnian War. The crusade of the Bosnian War in 1992 lead the bigotry to a global dispute, as the Croats enforced ethnic cleansing protocols against the Muslim Bosnians. A number of genocides in 1994 and 1995 supported the continued entanglement of NATO air strikes in both applying a no fly zone and establishing the Serbian air force. United Nations arbitrators on the ground missed the opportunity to fix up the situation earlier. A heavy occupation force enforcing the end of the conflict brought 60,000 troops to the area. These crisis represents a criterion within the discussion about military force to avert a massive ethnic cleansing.

Humanitarian Intervention is military intervention that is carried out in pursuit of humanitarian rather than strategic objectives. This term is controversial and therefore often debated, as it is an evaluative and subjective term. The common use of the term itself is the desire to come in help to other people, however according to some other opinions, it is the outcome of the intervention that defines it. Firstly, it is essential to define what is meant by the word abandoned in this context. As HI has been happening throughout history, abandoned would imply an on-going lack or diminishing numbers of interventions.

During the Bosnian War, NATO and the United Nations intervened to provide support and protection throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina. NATO’s role in the crisis was to peace-keep and enforce the sanctions imposed by the United Nations. NATOs first participated in the Bosnia War for Operation Maritime Monitor (July 16th, 1992). NATO ships watched and authorized all weapons and military equipment coming into Yugoslavia and monitored the economic sanctions charged against Yugoslavia. Operation Deny Flight was carried

In principal a humanitarian intervention is “an armed intervention in another state, without the agreement of that state, to address (the threat of) a humanitarian disaster, in particular caused by grave and large-scale violations of fundamental human rights” (Centre for Strategic Studies New

Humanitarian effort is an interesting topic to me. While reading about these efforts it is clear that people are at the heart of such efforts. Humanitarian efforts should be guided by goals such as; humanity, impartiality, independence, and neutrality. These important principles should be at the core to humanitarian work. It is critical to distinguish humanitarian action from other forms of activities. Humanitarian Laws, International Human Rights Law, and International Refugee Laws provides the frame work for fundamental legal standards relating to the protection of groups and individuals, as well as to the nature of the assistance being provided. In thinking about this topic along with the first of two questions needed to complete this assignment, I researched International Law as a Basis for Humanitarian Intervention. I discovered that there is no state right to humanitarian interventions. Furthermore, I learned that no government has the right to violate the territorial integrity and political independence of another country, locality or state under any circumstance. In my own opinion basic human rights have to be met no matter the circumstance.

In cases such as Iraq and Afghanistan the United States military assumed a huge role for the distribution of disaster and humanitarian assistance alongside their military objectives. If foreign militaries are carrying out humanitarian aid alongside military objectives, then there is no way that aid can be supplied to whoever is in need in ways that are impartial, neutral and independent. This new system whereby foreign militaries are responsible for supplying aid has created huge security problems for not only the military, but for the people who are receiving aid. Opposing factions to foreign military time and time again in Afghanistan and Iraq have targeted civilians receiving aid to further their own agenda. 7

Humanitarian interventions violate the principle of non-armed intervention provided by the United Nations. Traditionally, Western states are the ones who increasingly use this medium to give legitimacy to a security plan to protect its global economic interests. The fact invoked humanitarian grounds to intervene in domestic affairs of other countries is done to protect economic interests of interveners countries. Paradoxically states most involved are precisely those that contribute more funds to the United Nations for humanitarian action. Western nations have invoked numerous moral reasons born of natural law by which an intervention is justified as such: to penalize the wrong and protect the innocent. As Nardin (P.70) argued: “The tradition of natural law or common morality, sees humanitarian intervention as an expression of the basic moral duty to protect the innocent from the violence.” International organizations based on international law such as the United Nations, the International Red Cross, UNHCR among others, when they intervene in conflicts are always faced with a moral and ethical dilemma because their interests do not coincide with the benefit of the intervenor's countries.

In 2011, Operation Unified Protector performed air strikes over Libya, destabilizing the country and enabling the murder of Libya’s dictator of 42 years, Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi. The United Nations Security Council justified the Libya Intervention for NATO allies on the grounds of an imminent humanitarian crisis that was thought to occur at the direction of Gaddafi. Thus, the United States, UNSC, and NATO allies are culpable for the humanitarian catastrophe in Libya and the killing of Gaddafi, because of their misuse of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) for their “Humanitarian Intervention” in 2011.

The consensus among the international community affirms that nations, like individuals, have basic rights, namely, the right to territorial integrity and political sovereignty. When another nation violates these rights, it is considered an act of aggression. However, there certainly are situations where a violation of territorial integrity or political sovereignty is justified, namely in humanitarian intervention, “the use of military force against another state when the chief declared aim of that action is ending human-rights violations being perpetrated by the state against which it is directed.” The issue of humanitarian intervention has been at the forefront of international relations discourse, particularly after the end of the Cold War. It has been a highly contentious subject, having impact on millions of people and many regions around the world. The international community has yet to settle on a set of principles and parameters that define and characterize justification for intervention. However, writers like John Stuart Mill and Michael Walzer outline the conditions for which humanitarian intervention is permissible. A violation of a nation 's political sovereignty and territorial integrity for the purpose of humanitarian intervention is justified in Michael Walzer’s revision of the Legalist Paradigm when there is a substantial violation of the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property, and the host nation is either complicit in the injustice or

Humanitarian intervention is the act when states intervene in the affairs of another state because that state is violating the basic human rights of its civilians or because it is in the intervening state’s self interest to get involved. (Humanitarian, 2008) These interventions are not specifically aimed at violating the sovereignty of a state, but rather their purpose is to protect the basic human rights of civilians during civil wars and during crime against humanity. (Humanitarian, 2008) Realism explains that humanitarian intervention came about during the genocide in Bosnia but not in Rwanda because even though it might have been the correct moral action to take, intervention in Rwanda was not in the national interest of other

The last group are the optimists who support the ICISS report. They believe that the report is the best and most realistic option for the long term. They believe the report has the greatest possibility of solving the sovereignty versus intervention debate. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has credited the report with taking away the last excuse for states to not intervene, when doing so would save lives. In conclusion the optimists generally agree with every aspect of the report. (MacFarlane et al, 2004, p.981). MacFarlane et al fall into the optimists group. In other words they believe that humanitarian intervention is not an unacceptable assault on sovereignty. Despite this MacFarlane et al still believe that human intervention must only be undertaken when all of the criteria necessary for intervention, based on the ICISS’s report, have been fulfilled. There are a number of criteria that must be fulfilled before intervention can take place. Firstly the intervener’s intention must be based on averting or stopping human suffering. Secondly the intervention must be authorized by the UN Security Council. (MacFarlane et al, 2004, p.978). The other criteria stress that all non-military intervention has been considered before military intervention; that the level of intervention be proportionate to the task at hand; and that the task must have a good chance of success. (MacFarlane et al, 2004, p.979).

Much recent discourse surrounding humanitarian intervention has focused on the responsibility to protect (R2P). Prevention is a key component for good international relations and few would say it is not important, but as evidence to date would show prevention is very ineffective, the legality of military intervention still needs to be debated, as to date there is no consensus. For any intervention to be legitimate, whether unilateral or multilateral, it must comply with international law. So as not to cause any confusion, any situation in which an “intervention” is done with the permission or by request of the state being intervened, should be considered humanitarian assistance as state sovereignty is not breached. This paper will

The international relations theory that best explains Operation Provide Comfort would be the constructivist theory. However, Turkey’s involvement in the operation may also be explained through subaltern realism. The fact that the nations that comprised the coalition, save for Turkey, conducting Operation Provide Comfort went through the official channel of the UN shows that the intention was to act within the norms of the international community for conducting humanitarian interventions. Had the US decided to act unilaterally, without permission from the other states involved or the UN, it strongly indicate that the US self-interests superseded those of the global community. Furthermore, the coalition of western powers respected Turkey’s sovereignty by keeping the refugees at the border and providing aid in refugee camps there. Respecting a nations sovereignty, or giving reasonable cause for violating it, is an essential portion of constructivism as it indicates that states respect the artificially implemented restraints on themselves that they have set up.

The word “humanitarian” is very commonly used to describe the reason for the involvement. There is also a chance that this is a reason they are telling the public but on the other hand it might just be a cover for a more hidden

Nearly in 1990, Serbian goverment forced on albenian people in Kosova by using of police and military services. A large number of people were exposed to violence, torture or were killed. Moreover, the large number of people were moved from the territory to another place by forces of serbian goverment. There was a huge violence in the territory without obeying international law rules.After a few years, United States and its allies gave a ultimatum about taking back serbian police and military forces without using any power from Kosova. All world was expected that Serbia will obey the ultimatum from United States and